I don't agree with the NRA

[pwd72s]

You are falling victim to the anti 2nd amendment set. They propose "reasonable" restrictions...their words, not mine. Given those, they propose more "reasonable" restrictions. Make no mistake, the eventual goal is to outlaw all firearms except those issued to military and police.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by id10t

Compromise is when both sides meet somewhere close to the agreed-on middle.

You want every purchase to go thru a FFL and a background check? Fine. I want my state-issued CCW to be valid in all the states, just like state-issued birth certificate, drivers license, marriage license and eventually death certificate.

You want to ban semi-autos? Fine. Re-open the MG registry and have us register and tax them. But for a compromise I want a working happy switch without paying the artificially inflated prices.


See? Compromise each side gets something it wants in exchange for something the other side wants. What you (and many others) are proposing is "give this up and we'll let you keep this other bit... for now."

What we need are "reasonable" and "common sense" gun laws...Reasonable and common sense to whom? The one who proposes them, and anything else is not reasonable nor common sense. When someone trys to persuade you by telling you it is only common sense to go along with their plan, it is a manipulation, by trying to make you feel guilt for being unreasonable.

Well then I suppose if I give in to everything you want then I am being reasonable...ohh boy...who do I give everything I have to...Who do I hand my life over to.

The Socialists who came up with that one can go rotate...

[JavaBrewer]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Do you think this topic would be better suited for PARF?

The conversation belongs here IMO. While true that this can be a very partisan issue (mostly avoided so far) it would be great to read pro/con arguments that are reasoned and factual.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by cabmando

There is a middle. The problem is, and Jeff has pointed this out repeatedly in another thread, people willing to compromise have a very rational fear of "it's a good first step". I support background checks. I support having gun sales at gun shows go through a FFL holder. I support limiting magazine capacity. I'd support no detachable magazine.. The problem is, when put in context of "it's a good first step"... there's always the concern of "what's the next step?" The issue is that people can't be honest about their intentions.
I'm a gun owner. I see people focusing on the AR-15 and it tells me pretty quickly what their intentions are. The AR-15 isn't some special magical killing machine. Gun owners like me see them focusing on the gun and can't help but wonder, what happens when some loon uses one of the guns I own? "A good first step" is the problem lack of honesty is the problem relating to gun control. It's not that people aren't willing to compromise.

So I am being dishonest...

Your solutions do not work and they have negative consequences regarding your safety and loss of freedom. So quite frankly I maybe unreasonable but you are being delusional if you think any of that control stuff is going to help the situation.

It is NOT totally a mental health problem, it speaks to the capacity to be violent that lays in each human heart. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE END OF STORY REALITY...the rest is avoidance and denial.

I am talking about bottom line reality and you are talking some idealistic progressive gibberish. There has been no progress in 2000 years, the human heart is as thuggish, intolerant and brutal as it has always been. You only think you is a civilized monkey with your science, technology and talk about socially progressive idears... The fking joke is on you, because you are chasing your tail.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Detachable magazines, along with the firearms they feed, date from the late 19th century. Many who know nothing about firearms believe them to be some kind of a modern innovation. They honestly believe that we had no "mass shootings" until recently because we had no "high capacity" detachable magazines, nor did we have semi-automatic firearms. They believe we could somehow return to some idyllic society long gone, some Mayberry of their innocent youths, if only we could ban these modern killing machines. They are, of course, wrong on all counts.

Many have pointed to mental health as the real culprit. It's pretty hard to refute that. Something has changed in our society, and not for the better. The OP blames PTSD in Vietnam era vets as one probable link, yet the vast majority of our modern day mass shooters never served. Generations of WWI, WWII, and Korean War vets came home equally, if not more "shell shocked" and integrated back into society without exploding into violence at the slightest provocation. No, it's something else.

Supe touches on what I believe to be a large part of it - poor, disconnected parenting. Kids have been raised by day cares, nannies, and electronic games for better than a generation at this point. We have been roundly encouraged to "spare the rod" in modern child rearing, and have well and truly managed to "spoil the child".

Ask anyone who has been burdened with working alongside millennials in the workplace. Distracted, spoiled, little work ethic, defiant, and worse. There is something different about them that I did not see in previous generations following me into the workplace. Something very different. It's easy to see where their contemporaries are capable of lashing out in anger and self righteousness at a level us older generations were taught to contain. Maybe they were allowed to "express themselves" just a bit too much by clueless, uninvolved parents and daycare workers frightened of the consequences of disciplining these "little angels". Allowed too much by clueless adults who didn't want to "stunt their development". I dunno. It's something. But it's not the guns - they have always been out there, even more readily available than they are today. It's something else...

I have been telling what that is for quite some time...apparently it is in one ear and out the other with nary a stop in between. in other word you do not internalize my musings.

There are a few things going on which could account for the increase in violence.

1. As America has become bigger it has become more bureaucratized where they have taken your name away and given you a number instead, the personal attention to your needs has diminished, the system is not able to accommodate your particular needs. It is one size fits all mentality. Since people are individuals this has led to a greater and greater alienation where people begin to feel estranged from each other.

2. As the economic fortunes of Americans have been in decline people feel more hard pressed to make ends meet which creates increasing levels of stress. Where the more fragile members whose copping skills are limited are prone to snap. I call that the ants on the hot tin plate syndrome

[Clint Lando]

Make it illegal to shoot people problem solved

[chuckr]

Was it Chris Rock, the comedian, who said just charge $5,000.00 a bullet.
After all, it ain’t the gun that kills.... its the bullets !

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by tabs

CA passed a assualt weapons ban where the grandfathered weapons had to be registered by a certain date.

California put the "assault" weapon ban in place in response to an incident at a Stockton grade school. Perpetrator of that crime bought all his weapons and ammunition in Oregon, so the ban would have no impact on the crime that precipitated its institution.

This is a nice illustration of the disconnect between the laws and the crimes they are ostensibly in place to prevent.


Compromise is not what the gun control crowd is after, they are looking for a "good first step."

What else in the Bill of Rights are they looking to restrict?

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Tobra

California put the "assault" weapon ban in place in response to an incident at a Stockton grade school. Perpetrator of that crime bought all his weapons and ammunition in Oregon, so the ban would have no impact on the crime that precipitated its institution.

This is a nice illustration of the disconnect between the laws and the crimes they are ostensibly in place to prevent.


Compromise is not what the gun control crowd is after, they are looking for a "good first step."

What else in the Bill of Rights are they looking to restrict?

You mean from Orygun..and was he on his way to Cambria when he did it?

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by tabs

So I am being dishonest...

Your solutions do not work and they have negative consequences regarding your safety and loss of freedom. So quite frankly I maybe unreasonable but you are being delusional if you think any of that control stuff is going to help the situation.

It is NOT totally a mental health problem, it speaks to the capacity to be violent that lays in each human heart. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE END OF STORY REALITY...the rest is avoidance and denial.

I am talking about bottom line reality and you are talking some idealistic progressive gibberish. There has been no progress in 2000 years, the human heart is as thuggish, intolerant and brutal as it has always been. You only think you is a civilized monkey with your science, technology and talk about socially progressive idears... The fking joke is on you, because you are chasing your tail.

Am I supposed to take you seriously?

None of the things I support make me less safe. "Safe" isn't even a reality. No one is "safe" whether they carry or not. Carrying doesn't make you safe, it makes you prepared if you're ever in a situation where you might need to return fire in defense of yourself or others. So your "reality" isn't reality at all.. but rather a feeling.

[flipper35]

California just found out that a magazine round limit is unconstitutional.

[flipper35]

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by flipper35

California just found out that a magazine round limit is unconstitutional.

I read about that but didn't look into how they came to the determination that limiting magazine capacity in any way limits your ability to keep and bear arms.

[flipper35]

The link goes through it all, it is the brief from the decision.

[cabmandone]

Even after reading that, I still come away believing that magazine capacity limits don't infringe upon my 2 A rights. This is going to sound insensitive as hell, I know it will but I can't think of a better way of putting it, people need to learn how to properly and effectively use a weapon in self defense. I read the cases cited and couldn't help but come away thinking that no amount of rounds would have helped those people. Like I said, I know it sounds insensitive as hell but I believe if you own a gun, you have a responsibility to know how to use that gun for the intended purpose. This means practice and even taking classes that teach you how to use a weapon in self defense.

[Rapewta]

A little south of the original thread...
If you are tired of the same firearms in your safe... check out the Ruger PC Carbine. It is a take down and 9mm. It fits into the violin case sold by Peak Case Company. Two layered. Top for the take down and the bottom for two hand guns.
The carbine is 100% black with picatinny rails on the top and on the front bottom of the forend.

It is a hoot. All those 9mm handgun rounds can now be put out to 50 yards.
Pretty cool if you are burnt out on AR 556 collections.
It is designed with a hand grip that can easily be converted to a folding stock.

You then can have a carbine that fits inside your coat in two pouches. Awesome.

[Racerbvd]

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I read about that but didn't look into how they came to the determination that limiting magazine capacity in any way limits your ability to keep and bear arms.

A magazine capacity limit "infringes" upon the right to keep and bear arms. Once any government entity starts to define or restrict just what a law abiding citizen can "keep and bear" they have begun to "infringe" upon that right.

The Second Amendment does not allow for "just a wee little infringement", or "just a little bit of infringement" - it expressly forbids any infringement whatsoever. It enumerates a right held by all men, in which the government may not interfere, in which they morally have no say. It is a right that falls outside of their charter, outside of the authority we have granted to them under which they may govern us. It is beyond their purview, outside of their jurisdiction.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

A magazine capacity limit "infringes" upon the right to keep and bear arms. Once any government entity starts to define or restrict just what a law abiding citizen can "keep and bear" they have begun to "infringe" upon that right.

The Second Amendment does not allow for "just a wee little infringement", or "just a little bit of infringement" - it expressly forbids any infringement whatsoever. It enumerates a right held by all men, in which the government may not interfere, in which they morally have no say. It is a right that falls outside of their charter, outside of the authority we have granted to them under which they may govern us. It is beyond their purview, outside of their jurisdiction.

Well said. People ignore the fact that cannons, rockets and missiles were available when the Bill of Rights was written. And lethal multi shot rifles have been around since 1779.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle#History_and_use

[RKDinOKC]

I think the second ammendment taken in context means we as civilians have the right to own arms for an armed militia which means whatever arms it would take to protect ourselves from enemies foreign or domestic up to and including tactical nuclear weapons (that being the apex of "arms"). And especially not limiting "assault" weapons.

Requiring safety permits I have no problem with. Guns, knives, machine guns, missiles, rockets, whatever. And just because you have a permit, does not mean you own that weapon. It would just mean you have been trained to own and operate one safely. Can't purchase without a permit, and get max penalties for having one without a permit using it or not.